A Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision issued April 24, 2026 ruled that DACA recipients are not automatically protected from deportation and that immigration judges cannot terminate removal proceedings solely based on DACA status, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to more easily pursue deportation cases against DACA recipients. At the same time, DACA recipients are facing extreme delays in renewing their applications with USCIS, causing many to lose access to work permits and DACA status.
What changed
On April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision ruling that DACA recipients are not automatically protected from deportation and that immigration judges cannot terminate removal proceedings solely based on DACA status. Prior to this decision, DACA status could function as a soft shield in removal proceedings. That shield is now gone in the eyes of the appellate authority binding immigration judges.
Concurrently, DACA recipients are experiencing extreme delays in renewing their applications with USCIS, leading many to lose access to their work permits and DACA status. Since the start of 2025, over 300 DACA recipients have been detained, and over 90 have been deported.
Why it matters
The BIA ruling transforms the legal landscape for DACA holders in removal proceedings. Before April 2026, an immigration judge could dismiss or terminate removal proceedings out of discretion or humanitarian concern based on a client’s DACA status. Now, DACA offers no immunity from deportation prosecution. If DHS initiates removal proceedings against a DACA recipient, the client’s only defense must rest on other grounds—not on the DACA grant itself.
For practitioners, this means:
- Heightened litigation risk: Any DACA client in removal proceedings faces a legal framework that no longer treats DACA as a termination ground. You must build a defense on alternative bases (cancellation of removal, asylum, CAT, U visa derivative status, etc.).
- Renewal urgency: The extreme USCIS delays compound the risk. A client whose DACA renewal is pending while facing checkpoint encounters or ICE interactions is now vulnerable to arrest and removal, even with valid prior DACA authorization. Loss of work authorization during delay periods also affects client livelihood and tax-filing status.
- Detention as real threat: In areas like the Rio Grande Valley, DACA recipients face detention risk at checkpoints when traveling to work. The BIA decision removes a barrier that previously provided some hope during removal proceedings.
Way forward
- Advise all DACA clients: Even if a client is not currently in removal proceedings, brief them on the BIA ruling and renewal delays. If a renewal is pending beyond normal processing time, consider filing a USCIS service request or escalation.
- If DHS initiates removal: Do not rely on DACA status as a defense to the charges. Immediately investigate alternative relief grounds (cancellation of removal, asylum, VAWA, U/T visa eligibility, stays of removal based on family hardship, prosecutorial discretion requests).
- Monitor renewal status: Use USCIS case tracking and request an expedite if delays exceed published timelines. A lapsed DACA status, even temporarily, removes the applicant from the deferred action class.
- Checkpoint advisories: Counsel DACA clients on their rights at CBP checkpoints, limitations on consent searches, and the legal obligation to keep DACA documentation current. Emphasize that DACA alone no longer stops a removal case.
Disclaimer
Fola is a software company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently. The Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision discussed here is binding on immigration judges but does not affect your client’s right to appeal to a circuit court or seek judicial review. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess your individual client’s situation and develop a removal defense strategy. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and current USCIS and BIA guidance, as policy and case law can change without notice.